Interference 103,482
art to make and use the full scope of the subject matter
claimed as required under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
37 CFR § 1.637(a) states, “A party filing a motion has
the [initial] burden of proof to show that it is entitled to
the relief sought in the motion.” Ewen has not met his burden
to establish that Dolle’s claims are unpatentable under either
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, or 35 U.S.C. § 101. Consistent with the APJ’s
rulings (Paper No. 60, p. 9, first para.), we have interpreted
the phrase “sequence length” in light of Dolle’s specification
and prosecution history to mean the average length of the
sequences of the polymers. The evidence shows that (1) the
term “sequence length” is well known in the art; (2) persons
having ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have
understood the term “sequence length” to mean the average
sequence length of the sequences of the polymers in light of
Dolle’s specification, including Dolle’s examples; (3) persons
skilled in the art reasonably would have understood that
average sequence length can be accurately calculated based on
a triad analysis of the pentad distribution data from C-13 NMR
spectra by use of formulas known to persons having ordinary
111
Page: Previous 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007